Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Commentary: Legacy of the Commission on Research Integrity

  • Commentary
  • Published:
Science and Engineering Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

20 years ago, the Report of the Commission on Research Integrity (also known as the Ryan Commission after its chair) was submitted to the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services and to House and Senate Committees. As directed in enabling legislation, the Commission had provided recommendations on a new definition of research misconduct, oversight of scientific practices, and development of a regulation to protect whistleblowers. Reflecting the ethos of the time, the Commission recommended that institutions receiving Public Health Service research funding should provide oversight of all but the most egregious misconduct. The suggested definition of research misconduct was organized around misappropriation, interference and misrepresentation, which would have addressed collaborative/authorship disputes and sabotage in scientific laboratories, both of which remain unaddressed in current policy. The Commission also recommended the Whistleblower Bill of Rights and Responsibilities which would have authorized remedies for whistleblowers who experienced retaliation and sanctions against retaliators. Response from the scientific community was highly critical, and none of the Commission’s recommendations was accepted. No new body has examined issues within the Commission’s charge, there has been no significant Congressional or public pressure to do so, institutions have not been able to sustain standards that would have avoided current concerns about bias and irreproducibility in research, and there is still no entity in science capable of addressing issues assigned to the Commission and other urgent issues.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alberts, B., et al. (2015). Self-correction in science at work. Science, 348(6242), 1420–1422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bailar, J. (1995). The real threats to the integrity of science. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 41(32), B1–3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Code of Federal Regulations 42 CFR Part 93.103 2005.

  • Committee on Science, Engineering and Public Policy of the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. (forthcoming). The integrity of science. http://www8.nationalacademies.org/cp/projectview.aspx?key=49387. Accessed 12/18/15.

  • Devine, T. (1995). To ensure accountability, a whistleblowers’ bill of rights. The Scientist, 9(10), 11–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Enserink, M. (2014). Sabotaged scientist sues Yale and her lab chief. Science, 343, 1065–1066.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ethics Resource Center (2012). Retaliation: When whistleblowers become victims. http://www.ethics.org/resource/retaliation-when-whistleblowers-become-victims. Accessed 12/19/15.

  • Francis, S. (1999). Developing a federal policy on research misconduct. Science and Engineering Ethics, 5, 261–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, M. (2011). For whom the whistle blows, RAND Center for Corporate Ethics and Governance. Accessed 8/5/15.

  • Handling Misconduct NPRM-Regulation, 65 Fed Reg 70830 and Fed Reg 82972 (Nov 28, 2000). May be obtained on ORI’s web site. Accessed 8/5/15.

  • Institute of Medicine. (1989). The responsible conduct of research in the health sciences: Report of a workshop. National Academies Press.

  • Institute of Medicine. (2015). Sharing clinical trial data; Maximizing benefits, minimizing risk. Washington: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ioannidis, J. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine, 2(8), e124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ioannidis, J. (2014). How to make more published research true. PLoS Medicine, 11(10), e1001747.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klintworth, G. (2014). Giants, crooks and jerks in science. Bloomington: XLibris Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohn, S. M. (2011). The whistleblower’s handbook. Guilford: Lyons Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moberly, R. (2012). Sarbanes-Oxley’s whistleblower provisions: Ten years later. South Carolina Law Review, 64, 1–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Academy of Science Panel on Scientific Responsibility and the Conduct of Research. (1992). Responsible science. Washington: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rasmussen, L. (2014). The case of Vipul Bhrigu and the federal definition of research misconduct. Science and Engineering Ethics, 20, 411–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Redman, B. K. (2015). Are the biomedical sciences sliding toward institutional corruption? And why didn’t we notice it? Edmond J. Safra Working Paper no. 59. Harvard University.

  • Redman, B. K., & Merz, J. F. (2008). Scientific misconduct; Do the punishments fit the crime? Science, 321(5890), 775.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Report of the Commission on Research Integrity. (1995). Integrity and Misconduct in Research, USDHHS.

  • Resnik, D. B., et al. (2015). Research misconduct definitions adopted by US research institutions. Accountability in Research, 22, 14–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spilling the beans (2015). The Economist, pp. 62–63.

  • U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (2013). Annual report to Congress on the Dodd-Frank whistleblower program, SEC website. Accessed 12/19/15.

  • Wadman, M. (1996a). “Unrealistic” misconduct plans under fire. Nature, 381, 263.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wadman, M. (1996b). Hostile reception to US misconduct report. Nature, 38, 639.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitbeck, C. (1995). Trustworthy research—An editorial introduction. Science and Engineering Ethics, 1, 322–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Thanks to Tom Devine, a member of the Commission, for advice and for sharing materials from its public hearings.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Barbara K. Redman.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Redman, B.K. Commentary: Legacy of the Commission on Research Integrity. Sci Eng Ethics 23, 555–563 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9753-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9753-6

Keywords

Navigation